Thursday, November 16, 2006

Oh. Oh. I almost hate to post a blog entry because the discussion is really getting so interesting. I am enthralled with each entry. Carl – your story made me well up. Yes, it’s true. Atheism has nothing to say about how to cope with life. And you are so right, when you lose a loved one and are surrounded by people who try to comfort you by telling you that you will see the recently deceased again one day… it’s just a big old reminder that you aren’t.

And Michael – the person who wrote that science is anti-God. Yes, it is. You are right. It’s anti-God. Many others said the same thing. Science has a bias against evidence that cannot be tested. And since most people define God in a way as to make him, her, or whoever completely Un-testable, then God is not a good solution to scientists.

And so, in that sense, you could argue that science is anti-God. Of course there are scientists who believe in God and the ones that I respect (I am thinking of Martin Gardner) insist that their faith is completely private (and I think he even has admitted that his faith is for his own comfort, nothing more - he won't define his God or debate about it) and people like him don't even try to do silly things like argue against evolution or try to prove a 6,000 year old world, or that there is something called a quantum consciousness. They just have their faith. And it's private. And they don't insist that other people have their faith and they agree that science and secularism are the best ways through which to govern and exist in society.

Imagine if Copernicus had just accepted that the earth was flat because that’s what it said in the Bible. Any scientific advance necessarily discounts a supernatural answer. Because then that’s the end of the inquiry. God did it. End of story. And yet, this computer that I am writing on right this minute, is a product developed persons who dared to think further and experiment more and wonder deeper than the limited worldview that belief in God and compliance with a religious text might have instilled in them.

I say to Michael, just try and think of it. Just try to. Imagine we are right and you are wrong. Now I say this because I spent so many years thinking scientists were wrong and religion was right.

So I say to you, just sit and think about it. A species like ours, lurching – careening – bumbling into existence, in a world with a million, a billion possible outcomes. Here we humans come, oozing up out of the earth right along with the caterpillars and worms and bats and whatever existed at that moment. Imagine all the accidents – the asteroids destroying so much, the climate change, the deforestation, the flooding, supervolcanoes and wandering continents and magnetic fields switching up and back – all the species that died off that inadvertently benefited us, all of that – and here we are. Dominion over the earth – and not pre-ordained by God, but by pluck and luck and the virtues of natural selection and time and evolution – here we are.

And we have these brains that can figure out so much, and we are chock full of wonder and ability as well as violence and hate and jealousy. And we populate the earth, we over-populate it! Our success will, surely, participate in our ultimate demise – and yet here we are – you and me. Aware that the earth is round and that our solar system is about 6 billion years old. And we can’t even think about time that long because our puny little minds only evolved to be able to really appreciate about a hundred years or so. And here we are for this glorious moment, looking back at the Universe, blinking.

And then gone again and who knows what other species will evolve after us or if there will be an enormous asteroid plunging into us tomorrow. Or if we will extinct ourselves because of our violence that seems to be inexplicably, and intrinsically intertwined with a species’ intelligence (Dolphins, turns out they aren’t all so sweet as Flipper…)

But I ask you Michael, just let yourself imagine that we are right. Now, I know you will go right back to your other way of thinking. And I know that I would march to the Capital by foot to defend your right to believe anything you want to (in the privacy of your own home). But imagine that we are right for just a moment.

What a magnificent moment! How terrifying! How exhilarating! How tragic! How beautiful and poignant! Here we are, a little field of flowers and who knows when we’ll get plowed over and if the right insects will come and pollinate us.

And we know this because of this method – this crazy simple, but mind-bogglingly difficult method – the scientific method. And this method requires of us to stand up taller, distance ourselves from our feelings for just a moment, pull the camera back so we can see where we are standing when we face this evidence and then with tough, accepting eyes – take in the answer. To me, that is science at it’s best. And of course there are a zillion mistakes and missteps in this endeavor because we are simply humans and we are full to the eyebrows with emotions that cloud our perspective and our competitiveness and our desire to imprint our own expectations on the evidence. Of course! But science, when it’s done right – attempts to take the most honorable road. Even when that road offers us no comfort, and in fact makes the world much starker and more difficult to swallow.

I listened with some interest in the meeting of the American Bishops in Baltimore. And they started their weekend (which came to some announcements about homosexuality and the Church, more in a minute) with a shared reading that reminded us of god’s grant to humans, dominion over the earth. And I thought: that’s the problem right there! Dominion over the earth. Dominion. That arrogance!

But then I thought, but they are right. The outcome I mean. We have dominion over the earth. We are causing the sixth great extinction right now. And who cares if it was the Bible who told people or if we just evolved into this position of power and vulnerability. But we DO have dominion over the earth. And we are not handling our dominion particularly well.

And then the Church made an announcement that it was perfectly all right to be gay and Catholic as long as you agreed that acting on your sexuality (if you are gay) is sinful and wrong and heinous. And that it’s the actions that are bad, not the person. It’s just… something inside you that God put in you that makes you want to do things that are… bad, bad, bad. But don’t worry, that’s not YOU. That’s just God testing you.

ARGH. It just makes you wonder how that church even can continue at all.

In other news: I am doing a CNN interview tomorrow that is supposed to air Sunday morning on the CNN news. This segment is on faith and I am the subject of this week’s story. I did a pre-interview this morning and I go to tape tomorrow morning. The man who interviewed me today said he was shocked I was willing to say I was an atheist and that his friend told him not to even talk to me because I didn’t believe in God. Even though, this man was perfectly wonderful to talk to. I think, mostly, that people don’t understand why you are good if you don’t believe in God. It always amazes me that people think that if they didn’t have God to answer to, they would just bust out and do all kinds of unlawful and immoral things. It’s as if they, themselves, don’t understand why they behave well.

I am gearing up to shoot the movie in February, probably mid February. There is a raging debate going on in my mind about whether to shoot the show in a theater with an audience, like I did God Said Ha! Or film it all in my own home, me talking right to the camera, like the audience is a visitor. I go back and forth all the time over what is right.

36 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Julia said, "I am gearing up to shoot the movie in February, probably mid February. There is a raging debate going on in my mind about whether to shoot the show in a theater with an audience, like I did God Said Ha! Or film it all in my own home, me talking right to the camera, like the audience is a visitor. I go back and forth all the time over what is right."

How about do it on stage, without an audience? I really liked the "This American Life" version of your show. While I haven't listened to the CD yet (I have ordered it), the online sound segments, to me, don't convey the same mood as the TAL version had. I think some of this has to do with the audience background noise, and the lack of post-production music and pauses. They were really perfect in TAL.

So, perhaps the movie could be a "polished" version of the stage play, without audience, but with some sound effects, music, to set the mood. I really liked the pauses they put into the TAL version as it gave you time to think about what you had said before you went on with the show.

On the other hand, one advantage of having an audience would be that people who are theists would perhaps get something from seeing other people (the audience) reacting positively to your show. They might be more at ease watching it, and also thinking about it's content without dismissing you as "just another [angry!?!] atheist".

In the end, I'm sure it will be very good however it is done, and I look forward to buying it as well.

Is this going to be a DVD only release, or something that might be in theaters?

That was lovely. A truly stellar blog entry. Really, that's all I've got.

Oh, and I can't believe that someone didn't want someone else to talk to you, as if "teh atheism" might be contagious. Like "teh gay". As if I hadn't already tried that by standing next to, and talking to, beautiful straight women.

Puhleeeze do it with an audience. The CD version is sooo much better than the This American Life version. You definitely make it much more dramatic when you have audience feedback. You act instead of read the text. Without an audience the material seems a bit denegrating of its subject, particularly in the early segments. On the CD you are much more sympathetic and vulnerable, not to mention more overtly humorous.

How many times have my wife and I heard that? Strange how the very existence of good people who don't believe in a god is a threat to an entire belief system.

And I like the idea of doing the filming without an audience. I can imagine believers seeing it sometime (there may be some!) and being more drawn into your topic if it's more intimate: just you and each person watching. I know if one of use makes believers uncomfortable, imagine what they might think if they realized an entire crowd in the movie was also filled with non-believers!

And finally, to quote Catherine Fahringer again:"We would be 1,500 years ahead if it hadn't been for the church dragging science back by its coattails and burning our best minds at the stake."

Perhaps you could make a movie that recreates your "aspiritual" journey. You could narrate your thought process, as you the actress interacted with the priest at your church, etc. I can imagine a shot of you driving home and seeing all the people walking to church with their bibles and then the narration explaining your desire to yell at them, "Have you even read what's in book!".

It would be unique kind of movie, but would cost a lot more than taping one of your shows. Not sure you'd ever recover that cost.

Chance brought me to your sight. I was thining about your book "God Said, 'Ha!'" and I thought--hey, why don't I google Julie Sweeney. And here you are. Thanks for saying what you think. I'm an atheist, and feel horrible knots in my stomach at the thought of admitting this to family and friends, knowing how upset some of them will be. But I feel dishonest saying nothing at all. Anyway, thanks for your humor and your words.

Maybe you could do both live audience and cutaways to a more natural setting home or outdoors. Why not have it all!

Or you could do it live with portions of the performance done on big screen of yourself at home. Does that make sense? You know, like Al Gore did in his Inconvenient Truth documentary with him walking around his TN farm.

Bruce has a good idea. It reminds me of a scene from the movie, "Lone Star", where the main character goes to the river and reminisces about his youth. In a single shot, the camera pans away from the main character (old dude), along the river to show the main character as an adolescent (played by another person). There is some interaction between the young guy and his girl friend, and then it pans back to the old dude thinking about the past. It works really really well. I think it would also work for transitions between the monologue and the scenes Julia is describing, much as Bruce suggests.

Lone Star was a great John Sayles movie through and through and well worth watching.

Yeah, I like the things anonymous mentions. They seem like theatre conventions, which is what appeals to me when filming theatre.

Reminds me a bit of Fosse's All That Jazz, splitting time and space within the boundaries of a movie screen just like the way you can split a stage between two time frames simultaneously.

Julia, any idea which theater you might use for the film?

Something stylish, with some age and character, I'd hope. Somewhere you can smell the wood. Something intimate, yet intellectual. Perhaps not as musty and dusty as the Coronet, but something hopefully at least as storied.

Or just get Errol Morris to do it. That's how I see this piece. With his sense of style and austerity and disarming intimacy.

On another note that I posted awhile back, putting in another request here...

Julia, please include a reading list in your blog!

Your stacks of books in your set are amazing, but I didn't transcribe their titles! You could help us by putting together a "Julia's faves!" reading list... and if you don't want to do that, just do a "What's on Julia's nightstand now?" permanent feature to your blog. You can put it right where those links that don't do anything are that say "edit me" "edit me."

Julia:Yes, it's true, as you so beautifully told Carl: atheism doesn't provide a way of dealing with life.And of course, science doesn't either.They are not in themselves moral systems, or aids in making one feel more comfortable in the often inimical universe. And that's undoubtedly very hard to deal withBut one can't blame a cat for not being able to read Chaucer: it's not what cat's were "designed" to do.But for some people - obvioiusly those who wake up on morning and start to question the underpinnings of religious faith, or the idea that god is not only in charge but benevolent and generous, especiallly to those who have been following his directions - religion doesn't provide any real direction or genuine comfort either.If it did there would be no agnostics or atheists..

"I find it impossible to believe that there is not some greater power who not only put us on earth but who is watching over me and mine.." is not an uncommon response to the atheist.. and that's quite apart from accepting the idea of evolution rather than creation.And I find it hard to quarrel with that because my atheism is basically- beyond finding evolutionary theory thrilling, modern science stunning, and dependence on the rational very satisfying - quite the same thing: I simply CAN'T believe in a god with any function in my personal life, or in the life and fate of the universe..So from that vantage point at least, I have to allow such believers - those who simply cannot envision that we are not in the care of a higher power - to go their way with no remonstrance from me.At least not in public.However, when the argument of the believer turns to "proof," either his or his demands for mine, that's another story entirely.The arena is then located somewhere else, and the focus of any discussion changes into something much more adversarial.In other words, and of course speaking only for myself, I would be much more sympathetic to Michael, for instance, if he would just say "I believe, I believe.. so sue me." instead of trying to find nits in the hair follicles on Darwin's beautiful head.Best,

So, this entry is exactly the reason that I've got to lend your CD to my mom. You can say the same thing that I try to say, but in a so-much-less-aggressive way than I could ever get myself to do, even if I wanted to, which I don't.

I like the idea of mixing it up: combining staged portions with an audience with sections on an empty stage, plus walk-throughs of your house, maybe your old church, and other interiors and exteriors if possible.

There’s an interesting discussion thread this week in Salon about people’s varying understanding of god (a sea of consciousness/divine intelligence/ the unexplainable and ineffable):

http://letters.salon.com/tt/post/2006/11/17/post/view/?show=all

A contributor named Michaelben writes: “God is the good we do, and nothing is more inspirational…Atheism of the kind now being put forth by Richard Dawkins is directed at a concept of God very few believers today actually hold.”

I’m interested in the “mystical” experiences that a couple of these people describe, the kind that make people feel as if they are suddenly being embraced by a field of absolute love and calm and bliss. What would you attribute these to? Do their brains manufacture this experience? What about otherwise rational people who swear they see and communicate with the “ghosts” of their loved ones, getting messages that feel very idiosyncratic and personal? Or scary…I spoke with a solid, no-nonsense farm family who quite casually described the ghost they lived with for quite some time (footsteps pacing the halls, a form looming over them when they awoke, hovering on the stairs, etc.) One day the farmer got so fed up that he screamed at it to stop, and the entire house shook to its foundations and there was a tremendous flash of light. This was witnessed by the entire family. And they were never bothered by the ghost again. Could this have been simply a shared delusion, just tricks of their collective brainwaves?

I really loved that you wrote this: "And I know that I would march to the Capital by foot to defend your right to believe anything you want to (in the privacy of your own home)." It mirrored a conversation that I had with a friend earlier this week...

I am currently in the process of redecorating my house ('cause I'm crazy and can't leave well enough alone), and I'm struggling with what I should do with the empty wall space in my living room... and after a search high and low, coming up with nothing, I decided that I would enlarge a picture I took at a deserted cemetary in Ireland this past summer.

picture can be seen here:http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n109/solvar/Sugarland/cross.jpg

Naturally, when I mentioned this, a couple people called me "satan" and that a picture like that would, in my home, would offend them. Offend them? In MY home? What?!?!

But, ultimately, it led to this amazing discussion about the picture... and we all agreed by the end. One of my friends actually said that the picture once again reminded her that there needs to be some sort of breakdown between all the religious and non-religious barriers that are world-wide. I couldn't have agreed more....

Furthermore... I liked what you wrote because of this: I am a non-theist and my boyfriend is a church-every-Sunday Catholic. We disagree on, well, the obvious... but, would also do what we could to make it possible for each other to believe what we believe or don't believe... and would do that for anyone.

Now, I thought it would be a tricky thing dating him... given, well, the obvious. But, well, it works out perfect for us... and, in fact, when I mentioned what I was planning for the decor, he was the first one to jump on board and support it....

Why? When we discover natural, "scientific" truths, aren’t we just uncovering preexisting phenomena that we couldn’t understand before? What if our universe were, metaphorically speaking, a giant playroom supervised by a cosmic schoolteacher who took pleasure in, or dispassionately observed, our growing ability to understand and use all the cool toys? Wouldn’t it be silly of us (but very like adolescents) to get to a point where we thought we knew everything?

A clumsy analogy: if you left a bunch of three-year-olds alone in a building, and eventually they figured out how to work the thermostat and use keys to unlock cupboards full of food, they might think they had discovered how the world works. "Hey, when I turn this metal thing, hot water comes out. I’m doing it all by myself!" They probably wouldn’t be able to conceptualize how and why the water heater works, who installed the plumbing and constructed the building, who grew the food, what’s outside the building, electricity, architectural history, the law of gravity, etc., but that wouldn’t mean that all those things don’t exist. But they're only three, after all. Give ‘em time.

If I may offer a creative suggestion for how to shoot your show, why not start off in your home while you are packing for a trip to New York. There you are, packing the last few items, talking into the camera, and madness is swirling around you. You grab a car for LAX, stand in line for security, get on the plane, get your in-flight cocktail, get bumped by turbulence, go to tight quarter bathroom, etc. etc. all while continualy talking to the camera. The show can wrap up with you travelling from JFK to your hotel and finish with you on stage in New York. It's a thought, heh?

I have recently come to the point in life that I can honestly admit there is no god.....

"What a magnificent moment! How terrifying! How exhilarating! How tragic! How beautiful and poignant! Here we are, a little field of flowers and who knows when we’ll get plowed over and if the right insects will come and pollinate us."

A magnificant moment indeed, exhilarating! Like the sperm whale in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy who spontaneously pops into existence via the improbability drive. Falling, hurtling, miles above, toward the planet Magrathea, contemplating its existence ...

What's happening .. why am I here ... what is my purpose in life ... this is really exciting ... what's this thing suddenly coming toward me very fast ... ground! ... I wonder if it will be friends with me. Hello, ground ! THUD!

Julia, your CD means a lot. The words can literally stand on there own. I felt that the audience was a distraction for me. Almost as if they where laughing AT religion and not with you. Being and growing up catholic I have a feel what you went through. I like TAL production, when my wife and I heard it we couldn’t get out of the car; we just sat there looking out of the windshield at the golf course. Your words are your strength.

A philosophy instructor once asked the class to consider that science and god are BOTH matters of faith. If you believe in God, you have faith in the scriptures and faith that not all real things can be seen. If you beleive in Science, you have faith in empiricism--faith that what can be observed and measured reveals reality.

This instructor suggested that either way, it's still a kind of faith. While I am not in total agreement with his perspective, I found it useful to consider it.

I hope we don't get into a huge semantic discussion citing Webster etc to define "faith" in order to point out how ridiculous this idea is. It's food for thought, my friends--not a definitive decree.

"However, when the argument of the believer turns to "proof," either his or his demands for mine, that's another story entirely.The arena is then located somewhere else, and the focus of any discussion changes into something much more adversarial."

Debate and discussion over religion, like politics, often is adversarial. But, it doesn't have to be. Thusfar, I have found this blog to be very civil and very interesting. I'm a Christian (who seems to be in the minority here) having a discussion with many atheists. Yet, we have all been civil.

You said: "In other words, and of course speaking only for myself, I would be much more sympathetic to Michael, for instance, if he would just say "I believe, I believe.. so sue me." instead of trying to find nits in the hair follicles on Darwin's beautiful head."

Firstly, I am not adding to the discussion to find sympathy, but to probe reasons for your lack of belief in God and to raise points that might show your lack of belief not to be well founded. I do believe; I do believe in God. However, if a person is going to take the position that they do not believe in God because of what science has proven, as Julia has said, then we have the opportunity on this blog, courtesy of Julia, to debate the legitimacy of that position. Norma, if you don't believe in God because of some belief that science proves there is no God, then you haven't considered many of the findings, assumptions and conclusions of science that do not support that belief. Therefore, although atheist, you have "faith" in a system that you haven't fully explored.

Regarding Darwin's beautiful head, it is becoming badly balding. Darwin's original theory of evolution has not been supported by the evidence found since he wrote Origin of Species. The failures of proof is what has given rise to new theories such as puctuated equilibrium.

I must say I am honored by your kind words of support and encouragements, particularly from yourself and Ms. Blum. As you have both eloquently put, no there is no mechanism in either atheism or science to deal with the fundemental existential issues of life, such as dealing with death, a personal moral code, or arriving a an individual purpose of for our lives. To quote Ms. Blum, "...one can't blame a cat for not being able to read Chaucer...". These are issues that humans have wrestled with for as long as we have been sentient enough to conceive of our own mortality. And we have came together in social groups to discuss these things and find our answers. Some of these social groups came up with ideas that were soothing, then over time became codified, then dogmatic and today we have religions to deal with this. But now as newfound atheists we are not discovering a "new" post-religion truth, we are simply comming to a realization that the answers we arrived at are incorrect, so we are having to return to the drawing board of our social communities, but unfortunately we exist in fewer numbers than our religious breathern, and are scattered so much, as to make forming these comtemplative communities almost impossible. But that is what I feel makes this cyber location different than the others, while we may partake of extended civil debate about the truth or lack thereof of religion, most importantly we are forming a community. And as such our long term goals will eventually be the rediscussion and re-evaluation of these basic questions that we wish to deal with as humans. Atheism doen't answer this for us, it just lets us know we need to start looking again. Thank you all for your paitence with my verbosity. Have a wonderful day.

About Me

My book "If It's Not One Thing, It's Your Mother," published by Simon & Schuster, is out on April 2, 2013. I am doing a film of our show, "The Jill & Julia Show" with Jill Sobule, which will be available by April 1st.

Search This Blog

Loading...

Shows and Speaking Events

I have several events booked in connection with my book's publication.

1.) Feb. 9, 2013 Saturday Darwin On The PalouseDarwin on the Palouse 2013 There is a free showing of "Letting Go of God." I will be introducing the film and answering questions afterwards. Moscow, Idaho, University of Idaho